A rebuttal...

In responce to this: http://www.ex-atheist.com/6.html


The author’s descent into apathy/disillusionment with life is not a necessary consequent of embracing logic.
That she felt the need to attach some sort of cosmic significance to her life and actions, beyond embracing them for their own sake, probably says more about the pessimism inherent in religious belief than belief in logic and rationality. The notion that her life, the observable universe, is not beautiful enough, that there *must* be something ‘greater’ than that which we see, is not necessary to experience compassion, altruism and joy in one’s existence. The author is correct however in that science does not provide a moral code which religion does. Science merely tells us what probably is, not what ought to be.
For morality, one turns to philosophy (as she did at this point in the story) or religion.
She says that she tries Sartre and others and decides that “they were full of crap”. Why? This is an entirely arbitrary decision in this context which lacks any supporting evidence beyond the assertion that if something does not have a pre-defined essence, it can never have meaning.
Sartre’s philosophy of existentialism for example actually contains one of the most inspiring and optimistic outlooks on life. According to Sartre, being free from a pre-defined purpose means that we have almost unlimited potential to be whatever we wish to be.
The author makes a huge assumption - that moral relativism is a necessary consequent of a solely rationalistic outlook. This is blatantly untrue, in both a rationalistic ( as demonstrated with different results by Kant’s categorical Imperative and Mill’s Utilitarian philosophies ) outlook, and a mechanistic (Hobbes) view amongst others.
So the author turns against Christianity. Understandable given he lives in a country where the vast majority are adherents to what is ultimately an illogical faith. This is not a slight against believers, but a truth. The rationalist thinker cannot entertain the notion of faith which they seem to possess and with this removed, the belief becomes irrational, if understandable.
That the author found flaws in her own logic is indicative of a flaw in the author’s logic, rather than logic itself and demonstrates the flexibility of the rationalist perspective - that if a flaw is found, the view can be re-examined and a better conclusion arrived at. Not so with religious dogma.
There is some ironic foreshadowing at this point where the author wonders if “they (believers) so desperately want there to be a God that they had deluded themselves into thinking that there was one?”. This seems to be precisely the road she herself is on, given her inability to reconcile her view of reality, with atheistic philosophies.
So she beings to look again at the bible. The objections she raises and her reasons for discarding them seem particularly week. She finds an action of God morally objectionable (which presumably is impossible given her alleged moral relativism) and then dismisses this because “God made it, he must know what he’s doing” (my interpretation, not a direct quote).
The moment of revelation as described by the author is, understandably, baffling to a rationalist thinker.
The author doesn’t actually say what it was that triggered this epiphany. There is plenty of obtuse rhetoric but little substance. What exactly is “needing to be made complete by the perfect love of God” supposed to mean?! The kind of language surrounding the supposed epiphany is very different from anything a rational philosopher would use, suggesting the author had either never truly embraced philosophy (perhaps seeking it as a substitute for religion rather than an end in itself) or had long since abandoned its rigorous approach to ideas about the divine.

The result seems to be both fascinating and stomach-turning in equal amounts. This lost soul who has wandered through the atheistic wilderness discovers to her joy that “I sucked! Christianity wasn't what was wrong with the world! A lack of education wasn't what was wrong with the world! I was what was wrong with the world”. Her life has seemingly been given new purpose - to experience shame and guilt.
More consequences of her newfound belief involve equating premarital sex, abortion and homosexuality to acts of selfishness. While this is a debate in itself, the fact is that many human actions (Hobbes says all) are acts of selfishness. If being with a person you love is an act of selfishness, the homosexuals are going to hell. If not wanting to bring a severely handicapped child into a world of suffering is an act of selfishness, then mothers who abort are going to hell. If two people want to experience sex - something which probably brings us closer to our true nature than any religious tract - then they are going to hell.
She can no longer enjoy television because it is “offensive to God”. Any idea that she might have been possessed of a sense of humour at any stage of her spiritual development has now thoroughly evaporated.
Towards the end of the article, perhaps the author has realised that she has not really provided any actual examinable reasons for her conversion and seeks to do so. We are told “ For me, Biblical truth wasn't verified through historical accuracy, inerrancy or reliability of the Gospels, because my initial assumptions didn't include these things”. Why not? Any student of philosophy is aware of the inherent flaw in the proposition commonly known as “Pascal’s Wager.” If you discount (as the author admits she did) everything which verifies the authenticity of the Bible’s version of truth, then you have absolutely no guarantee that you are following the correct interpretation of God’s will, beyond the fact that the Biblical version is appealing to you (and why should this be enough?).
There is a fundamental difference between the concepts of “truth” and “biblical truth”. Presumably, if the author examined the holy book of any other religion, she would have been similarly converted.
her mind-boggling explanation concludes with “The fact that I, or anyone, was capable of understanding spiritual matters became my evidence for the soul.” That any student of philosophy could think this sentence is strong enough to stand on its own, without reference to Cartesian metaphysics or any philosophy of mind at the very least, speaks volumes for the author’s ability to articulate her point.